If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Policy / Politique
The fee for tournament organizers advertising on ChessTalk is $20/event or $100/yearly unlimited for the year.
Les frais d'inscription des organisateurs de tournoi sur ChessTalk sont de 20 $/événement ou de 100 $/année illimitée.
You can etransfer to Henry Lam at chesstalkforum at gmail dot com
Transfér à Henry Lam à chesstalkforum@gmail.com
Dark Knight / Le Chevalier Noir
General Guidelines
---- Nous avons besoin d'un traduction français!
Some Basics
1. Under Board "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQs) there are 3 sections dealing with General Forum Usage, User Profile Features, and Reading and Posting Messages. These deal with everything from Avatars to Your Notifications. Most general technical questions are covered there. Here is a link to the FAQs. https://forum.chesstalk.com/help
2. Consider using the SEARCH button if you are looking for information. You may find your question has already been answered in a previous thread.
3. If you've looked for an answer to a question, and not found one, then you should consider asking your question in a new thread. For example, there have already been questions and discussion regarding: how to do chess diagrams (FENs); crosstables that line up properly; and the numerous little “glitches” that every new site will have.
4. Read pinned or sticky threads, like this one, if they look important. This applies especially to newcomers.
5. Read the thread you're posting in before you post. There are a variety of ways to look at a thread. These are covered under “Display Modes”.
6. Thread titles: please provide some details in your thread title. This is useful for a number of reasons. It helps ChessTalk members to quickly skim the threads. It prevents duplication of threads. And so on.
7. Unnecessary thread proliferation (e.g., deliberately creating a new thread that duplicates existing discussion) is discouraged. Look to see if a thread on your topic may have already been started and, if so, consider adding your contribution to the pre-existing thread. However, starting new threads to explore side-issues that are not relevant to the original subject is strongly encouraged. A single thread on the Canadian Open, with hundreds of posts on multiple sub-topics, is no better than a dozen threads on the Open covering only a few topics. Use your good judgment when starting a new thread.
8. If and/or when sub-forums are created, please make sure to create threads in the proper place.
Debate
9. Give an opinion and back it up with a reason. Throwaway comments such as "Game X pwnz because my friend and I think so!" could be considered pointless at best, and inflammatory at worst.
10. Try to give your own opinions, not simply those copied and pasted from reviews or opinions of your friends.
Unacceptable behavior and warnings
11. In registering here at ChessTalk please note that the same or similar rules apply here as applied at the previous Boardhost message board. In particular, the following content is not permitted to appear in any messages:
* Racism
* Hatred
* Harassment
* Adult content
* Obscene material
* Nudity or pornography
* Material that infringes intellectual property or other proprietary rights of any party
* Material the posting of which is tortious or violates a contractual or fiduciary obligation you or we owe to another party
* Piracy, hacking, viruses, worms, or warez
* Spam
* Any illegal content
* unapproved Commercial banner advertisements or revenue-generating links
* Any link to or any images from a site containing any material outlined in these restrictions
* Any material deemed offensive or inappropriate by the Board staff
12. Users are welcome to challenge other points of view and opinions, but should do so respectfully. Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. Posts and threads with unacceptable content can be closed or deleted altogether. Furthermore, a range of sanctions are possible - from a simple warning to a temporary or even a permanent banning from ChessTalk.
Helping to Moderate
13. 'Report' links (an exclamation mark inside a triangle) can be found in many places throughout the board. These links allow users to alert the board staff to anything which is offensive, objectionable or illegal. Please consider using this feature if the need arises.
Advice for free
14. You should exercise the same caution with Private Messages as you would with any public posting.
I bet that caught your attention but it's not the topic of this post.
I've been looking through some games in databases. What catches my attention is the different strength of play in the sections of the game. Here's a tip and it should help weaker players. Strong players know everything so probably don't need this.
The games is roughly broken into 3 sections.
1. The Opening.
2. The Middle Game.
3. The Endgame.
Mostly, if you are poor at the openings you won't take much of a game into the middle game. If your middle game play is poor, you'll get poor endgames. And, if your endgame play is poor you won't be able to capture the full point or realize your draw.
No matter what class you play, you should identify the part of your game which is the weakest and work on that. Strive to make each section of your game equally strong. That should improve your overall play and your rating as well.
I bet that caught your attention but it's not the topic of this post.
I've been looking through some games in databases. What catches my attention is the different strength of play in the sections of the game. Here's a tip and it should help weaker players. Strong players know everything so probably don't need this.
The games is roughly broken into 3 sections.
1. The Opening.
2. The Middle Game.
3. The Endgame.
Mostly, if you are poor at the openings you won't take much of a game into the middle game. If your middle game play is poor, you'll get poor endgames. And, if your endgame play is poor you won't be able to capture the full point or realize your draw.
No matter what class you play, you should identify the part of your game which is the weakest and work on that. Strive to make each section of your game equally strong. That should improve your overall play and your rating as well.
In my personal experience, the endgame is the most important portion of the game. Why? because at the club level the vast majority of games are filled with errors, and almost always, the side that makes the last mistake ends up losing.
Some games are decided in the opening and middle game, but I'd guess that most are decided in the endgame, especially between players of equal strength.
Even when I was below 2000, I could usually get some sort of decent position against experts and masters, but I didn't start converting those positions until I actually started paying attention in the ending. My personal feeling about chess development is that unless you're getting annhilated in the opening everytime, if you're going to study you should study endgames for the most part.
I'm speaking from experience here as well. I've horribly misplayed endings against IM Zhe Quan, and Gm Kovalyov and Shabalov. All of the games were fairly close going into the ending, and against Shabalov he said I missed a draw, and I think I had near equality against Kovalyov in the ending.
Either way, in all cases my opponents outplayed me and I lost, however I feel that if I could just get a bit better in that portion of the game perhaps I can start winning a few more games against the big guys....
Either way, in all cases my opponents outplayed me and I lost, however I feel that if I could just get a bit better in that portion of the game perhaps I can start winning a few more games against the big guys....
It sounds like you should strengthen your endgame. Getting that far with equal or superior positions seem to indicate some improvement there would be of benefit.
The problem is how to do it at your level. Books are a good help. They help recognize the positions which to steer toward. For tricky 6 piece endings the online tablebases are a help. Set up the position you want and play with the position until you understand how it works.
I play on a private team in a CC league. One of the guys on the team is pretty good with his endings. After I mangled one a few years ago he showed me how to play those type endings. He showed me how to take a lost position, go into a pawn down rook ending, and draw it. It's kind of a recurring theme but not something I would have been able to learn myself or might not even have thought of doing. It doesn't work every time but often.
If you know someone who is strong with endings, get him to work on positions with you. Sometimes it gets to the point that you know a problem exists but can't fix it yourself.
One author whom I read, named Rolf Wetzell, suggested that your overall chess strength (directly related to rating) is limited by the weakest ability you have in a set of factors he defined as contributing to overall chess strength.
I can't remember what the factors were. As a chess player who started competing seriously in his late 20s, I found this really important to consider. Here is a fake list made up on the spot:
Player XX
Contributing Factor Score
Opening theory 7/10
Middlegame planning 7/10
Positional Understanding 9/10
Tactical Ability/Calculation 7/10
Counter-Intuitive Thinking 7/10
Physical Health 7/10
Mental Health 8/10
Time management 4/10
For example if you are a time pressure addict (and man they are many in number) then - according to Wetzell - you have automatically lowered your overall chess strength. Your overall strength might be assumed to be an average of the above which would be 7/10, but is instead severely limited by the 4/10 on time management. Thus you might get stuck at 4/10 as your maximum overall strength, as your weakest link is holding back many other - much stronger - abilities. I think this relates to Gary's well known suggestion of improving every phase of the game. However, there can also be external factors like mental and physical shape, among others. I realize these factors need to be weighted, but you get the general idea.
In addition, its also worth noting that IM Silman's advise for amateurs was that spending too much time on the ending really becomes meaningless because you'll never get there if you dont get out of the opening and middlegame alive. This means he weights middlegames more heavily than endings, or much more. He has a point that endings dont exist without middlegames, but middlegames do exist without endings. His new book on endings is equal to his middlegame book, concentrated on essentials for amateurs. Its worth noting the massive number of ideas ommitted in the early stages (he gives ratings categories versus what you should know), trying to simplify the ending for a beginner so they can focus on whats important. To him that is the opening and middlegame.
Of course in a correspondence game the weighting of factors would be entirely different than over-the-board chess. An interesting set to compare.
My own personal experience was my chess strength plateaud until I did two things: 1) Played more tournaments outside of Sudbury, and played overall with greater frequency. 2) Played stronger opposition (if number 1 didnt tell you that already). 3) Studied endgames vigorously.
Check out Wetzell's book if you're interested, I think it was "Chess Master... at any age". Some interesting ideas.
For some of the points you present, I'd see a medical doctor and/or sports psychologist. In any case, when all is said and done, if a person can't play the opening, middle game and endgame equally well, the problem will continue.
Your personal experience seems to indicate you improved your strength by improving your endgame and increasing your frequency of play enough so your game didn't get "rusty".
A general indication a players openings or middle game is a bit deficient is if the player often goes into the endgame a couple of pawns or a piece down. If it's happening often I think it indicates a problem rather than simply being outclassed.
I should probably say I'm not trying to sell anything. I don't teach the game for money and never have.
That's an interesting point you raise, but if you'd paid attention, you'd see these ideas belong to others, and are not my own. Funny though.
I think that as someone who is an 1800 player OTB versus much higher correspondence rating, you should look towards time pressure management, physical shape and mental shape - for improvements. That's assuming that in both OTB and correspondence chess you do not use external resources such as engines and books, as that could also be a factor responsible for the large difference.
The extended time allowed for moves with correspondence may negate these factors, which are clearly less important when in the comfort of your own home.
That's an interesting point you raise, but if you'd paid attention, you'd see these ideas belong to others, and are not my own. Funny though.
I think that as someone who is an 1800 player OTB versus much higher correspondence rating, you should look towards time pressure management, physical shape and mental shape - for improvements. That's assuming that in both OTB and correspondence chess you do not use external resources such as engines and books, as that could also be a factor responsible for the large difference.
The extended time allowed for moves with correspondence may negate these factors, which are clearly less important when in the comfort of your own home.
Mavros
I can see your main problem is you put faith in ratings. Using ratings to prepare for an opponent has cost many players the game.
BTW, I had a look at the game you played against Marchenko. I compliment you for finding so many unique ways in one game of placing your king so it could fall prey to discovered checks. He played like a GM popping a 1400 player.
I bet that caught your attention but it's not the topic of this post.
I've been looking through some games in databases. What catches my attention is the different strength of play in the sections of the game. Here's a tip and it should help weaker players. Strong players know everything so probably don't need this.
The games is roughly broken into 3 sections.
1. The Opening.
2. The Middle Game.
3. The Endgame.
Mostly, if you are poor at the openings you won't take much of a game into the middle game. If your middle game play is poor, you'll get poor endgames. And, if your endgame play is poor you won't be able to capture the full point or realize your draw.
No matter what class you play, you should identify the part of your game which is the weakest and work on that. Strive to make each section of your game equally strong. That should improve your overall play and your rating as well.
Hi Gary
There are aspects of chess skill, such as some of those Mavros gave (e.g. calculating ability), or such as subjective decision making (based on one's knowledge of the opponent or even the current tournament/match situation), which cut across all three traditional phases that you mentioned. In addition to these three phases there are the transitions between opening and middlegame, and middlegame and endgame, which might be considered phases in themselves. I'm ignoring cases where opening theory can be followed straight into an ending.
There is also the learning ability of a player to consider when discussing what and how to study. Having a good coach is ideal, if one is willing to pay. Like many players of an earlier generation, I learned to a large extent on my own, mainly from instructive books. Sometimes a problem was that books were poorly worded or simply wrong/outdated in places, aside from the fact that I had questions which the study material didn't seem to answer. Sometimes I could figure things out on my own, but other times I would not find my answer until I looked at a different book, or talked with fellow chessplayers (fortunately :) for the longest time I always seemed to personally know at least one player who was stronger than myself, though often I met them just at tournaments). A coach would have sped up the process.
The task of chess authors is not always easy, but some misconceptions perpetuated by many books I have seen still bring a smile to my face, and two (minor ones?) I'll use as examples of what the student can be up against.
The first example of a (minor?) misconception that a student might have to overcome is the expression found in books that "...all other things being equal, [factor X] constitutes an advantage" when applied to a given position. As one book I finally came across correctly pointed out, all others things are hardly ever equal - what the expression should be is "...all other things balancing each other out, [factor X] constitutes an advantage".
The second, perhaps more trivial/academic example of a misconception (that is nevertheless widespread) is one that I have yet to see treated properly by any book that discusses it. It involves the incorrect explanation of the time Black loses in the main line of the Centre-Counter Defence.
After the moves 1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 the books all say that Black's previous move, combined with his queen recapture, involves losing time after the move 3.Nc3.
Well, first of all, White's move two was not a developing move, but Black's move one was. So it seems White's subsequent 3.Nc3 is only regaining the time consumed by playing 2.exd5, assuming Black doesn't retreat his queen straight back to d8. After the usual 3...Qa5 we have the following position:
Here we can see that both sides have the same number of pieces developed, and each side has a diagonal open for a bishop to be developed. It is White to move. So, aren't the books completely wrong that Black's play has cost him time? Not quite. It will take some additional moves to be played, but with correct play (as concrete opening theory has shown) Black will eventually feel the need to reposition his queen, and that is where the real loss of time will finally occur. The truth is that this variation somewhat prematurely commits Black's queen, and he has to pay a certain price for this eventually, but in return Black has at least knocked White's e-pawn out of the centre and Black often emerges with a solid position a la Caro-Kann. To be kind, perhaps all authors know this reasoning, but it simplifies things to tell a white lie to the aspiring chess player.
Last edited by Kevin Pacey; Tuesday, 15th September, 2009, 03:59 PM.
Anything that can go wrong will go wrong. Murphy's law, by Edward A. Murphy Jr., USAF, Aerospace Engineer
You'll always have an edge in the email department. You can sit, think for days, and come up with... me losing to a promising Canadian talent? Lame. I've lost to much worse. Alex is very strong! Keep searching your database of comebacks please. I'm sure after several days analysis you can come up with something good. On the spot? Well that remains to be seen, just like you.
I've seen from your losing battles with Hebert that you believe in yourself more than ratings, since you think you can codemn an opening that is an excellent practical weapon such as the Winawer. Laughable. Now you're just condemning other's ideas (Silman, Wetzell). Get over yourself, you're not the law.
Are you living proof correspondence is like steroids for 1800 rated players?
If so, please dont beat me up with your big dangerous correspondence rating muscles! Oh wait, that would require you to get off your butt and come to play a real game face to face. Fat chance. Your magical powers would be gone OTB.
There are aspects of chess skill, such as some of those Mavros gave (e.g. calculating ability), or such as subjective decision making (based on one's knowledge of the opponent or even the current tournament/match situation), which cut across all three traditional phases that you mentioned. In addition to these three phases there are the transitions between opening and middlegame, and middlegame and endgame, which might be considered phases in themselves. I'm ignoring cases where opening theory can be followed straight into an ending.
There's are a lot of aspects involved and lots of way to complicate things. I'm only wrote about 3 important aspects of a game. Easy for everyone to understand. I tried to keep it simple for the lower rated players who might be interested.
Who cares about health and that sort of thing? How often do you clobber an opponent who doesn't claim to be ill?
Mavros did some trolling and didn't like my reply. He has limited talent for chess, but tries to excel in heckling.
Kevin, he is an adult, isn't he? I'd hate to think I was laughing at a youngster.
I don't know why Kevin is wasting his time trying to tell a know-it-all like you his thoughts.
You're a joke, a long-distance joke. Everyone knows what the large discrepancy in your ratings means. I'm sorry, its just true. You didnt have the ability to achieve a level you could brag about OTB so you went to correspondence play where you could successfully beef up your play with help and feel good about yourself. Not all players do that, but its clear a digruntled little guy like you had to. How else could you brag about this and that, and ever hope to be important? Does it suck that you got your correspondence title and still nobody cares what you say? I'll care about you, you sad little man! Sure I'll fight with you if you want, you're an easy target.
Just keep talking trash, when it comes down to it, I'd beat you OTB - where it counts -and where you cant use other "resources". I've beaten players with a great deal more talent then you. Big deal.
I don't know why Kevin is wasting his time trying to tell a know-it-all like you his thoughts.
You're a joke, a long-distance joke. Everyone knows what the large discrepancy in your ratings means. I'm sorry, its just true. You didnt have the ability to achieve a level you could brag about OTB so you went to correspondence play where you could successfully beef up your play with help and feel good about yourself. Not all players do that, but its clear a digruntled little guy like you had to. How else could you brag about this and that, and ever hope to be important? Does it suck that you got your correspondence title and still nobody cares what you say? I'll care about you, you sad little man! Sure I'll fight with you if you want, you're an easy target.
Just keep talking trash, when it comes down to it, I'd beat you OTB - where it counts -and where you cant use other "resources". I've beaten players with a great deal more talent then you. Big deal.
Mavros
Mavros,
That's big talk for a guy who didn't even get 50% in the last Ontario Open. If you'd brag less and study more maybe you would be a little better at the form of chess you choose. You're struggling in provincial events. Looked to me like you got less than 50% in the Ontario Open.
I, on the other hand, excel at the form of chess I chose. When the national teams are formed, I get an invitation. I don't suppose you get one from the CFC, and we all know the reason.
I'm not bragging when I say I can beat you, because you're nobody special. No one would care if and when I beat you, because nobody thinks anything of you as an opponent. The challenge stands. Face me at the board or you're just blowing smoke. I think your long-distance jokes are cowardly to say the least. Let's have a game or two. Face to face. I'm not going to brag about my achievements in chess because then I'll be as sad as you. You just keep hiding under your computer screen Gary, nobody will care until you can get out and win a game for real. Yawn.
I'm not bragging when I say I can beat you, because you're nobody special. No one would care if and when I beat you, because nobody thinks anything of you as an opponent. The challenge stands. Face me at the board or you're just blowing smoke. I think your long-distance jokes are cowardly to say the least. Let's have a game or two. Face to face. I'm not going to brag about my achievements in chess because then I'll be as sad as you. You just keep hiding under your computer screen Gary, nobody will care until you can get out and win a game for real. Yawn.
Mavros
You brag too much. I don't waste time on untitled players like yourself. I think you're looking for a free chess lesson from me. Come back when you get a title.
We can turn this into a learning experience. Here's a game of yours. In keeping with the theme of the thread, is it weak in the opening, middle game or endgame. I guess we can probably forget about the endgame. You didn't get that far.
You don't play any people at all over the board, because it would expose just how weak you really are. It would be embarassing after all those years to see yourself at 1800 (probably lower) again when you think so highly of your assisted rating. Nobody cares about you or your bragging. All I said was you wouldnt be a challenge, and you wouldnt. You were never near 2200 OTB and you wont ever be. Give your title to Rybka, it does your work for you. You can call it yours though, good for you :)
Tweet
Comment